This particular metaphor is stupid because the Founders knew perfectly well slavery was happening, and they knew it would be an issue going forward. So it's analogous to you knowing precisely which criminal was going to seize Granny's purse, and not telling the cops about it.
Not at all. You know perfectly well that muggers steal old ladies purses. The federal government was never intended to have that much control over the states.
I believe you just agreed with me.
My argument is that the Constitution was designed to protect slavery. Your argument is that the Constitution "was never intended to give the Federal government that much control over states." In other words, you just agreed that it was specifically designed to protect slavery from the Federal government.
Thanks.
The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.
You can skip the third parties in your explanation of the emancipation proclamation. It isn't necessary at all. But the sixth amendment does not limit the government's actions against foreign entities especially when at war with them- just US entities.
Apparently neither of us knows the Constitution as well as we thought. Or rather apparently I don't, and you didn't bother to check.
It's the Fifth Amendment we're talking about, and it's last clause is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Now the south considered themselves to be foreign to the US, Lincoln and congress considered them a belligerent power (an entity of their own right) and states up to this time were actually countries who surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a central federal government but retained most of it. More importantly, the US north set a requirement of ratifying the 13th amendment to allow the south to "fully rejoin" the union during the reconstruction. Of course the rumor was Johnson used that threat was to force the 13th amendment before congress reconvened because he knew it would be hostile towards the south and limits their ability to rejoin the union.
That's a neat bit of legal reasoning, and it's largely the one Lincoln used. But it ignores the fact there was a fairly strong minority of southern slave-owners who remained loyal. Sherman's bodyguard on his March to the Sea was actually the First Alabama.
The proclamation was enforced with an unconstitutional income tax, and to top it off Lincoln did that thing were he ignored it when Chief Justice Taney granted a writ of habeus corpus.
I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with things. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus which was unconstitutional but supported in other courts. You aren't attempting to claim that because he did something unconstitutional that anything you want to claim is so- is automatically unconstitutional because of it are you?
I'm not the one who said the income tax was Unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment.
I think you are a victim of this new age history in which everything is contorted and construed into some version in which the US is evil. In all your statements about the US constitution, you have to make a leap so large that Evil Kneivel would be scared to jump that far in order to support your assumptions. It's really depressing that you fight so strongly for such incorrect beliefs.
If I've fallen for silly anti-American BS, why did you agree with me in the first sentence of this post?
Are you arguing about the search that revealed the data, or the government's explanation of how that search happened? Because the latter argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. Which means the exclusionary rule does not apply. The remedy for the Court saying the government is excessively deceptive about how it obtained evidence is that the judge orders the government to come clean, not that the evidence gets excluded.
Note the "excessively." If the Courts think that the manner in which the evidence was obtained is irrelevant to the question before them (ie: did this idiot Ulricht pay somebody to kill people), then they will let the government get away with it. Under the American system of government the accused has the right to argue the evidence is complete BS, but he doesn't get to waste the Court's time with years of depositions figuring out precisely how the evidence got into the government's hands. In many cases the Judge will actively aid the government in lying about it's investigative techniques, because you do not actually have a right to know which technique the government used to tap your phone. You just have the right to know your phone was tapped, and this is the recording.
Your entire premis is incorect to start with but your attempt to push a specific version seems to paint the wrong inferences. I would think beating a person to the point they died after suffering for several days might be a bit worse than rape but neither is protected, encouraged, or supported by the US constitution as your original statements make.
Murder just doesn't have the same emotional impact as rape.
And yes, both were protected because the Constitution is specifically designed so that the Feds can't stop slave-owners from doing either.
Also, defending the confederacy was not about slavery directly until the emancipation proclomation. It was about economic freedom and federalism which the US government was trying to undo. Before lincoln forced the issue to gain support to get reelected, slavery was not a target of thecivil war. Sex with slave was never part of the war nore anyintended cause for remedy after the war.
You seem like a nice guy- just a little misguided and a lot confused about action and inaction and the meaning of such.
You don't know the timeline very well. Seven of the South's 13 seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. They couldn't be reacting to Lincoln's tyranny. They were anticipating that the North would restrict slavery, and they wanted none of that. All their founding documents repeatedly refer to themselves as the "slaveholding states." So you can make an academic argument that defending the Confederacy was not defending slavery prior to the Proclamation, but in reality the guy defending a Confederation of slave-holding states from the tyranny of a guy who might restrict slavery (but hasn't tried to yet) is defending slavery.
Note that the Proclamation was issued 17n months into a 48 month war. Since every southern soldier was by definition defending slaves from being freedx by the north after that, then almost 2/3 of a Southern officer's war was spent defending slaves from being freed.
"Citizen" is an individual title in the early bits of the Constitution. Citizen A is (or is not) eligible for this office, Citizen can sue Citizen C in such-and-such a Court. The closest thing there is to a reference to "Citizens" as holding Constitutional rights is the priveleges and immunities clause, and they pretty much had to use that exact word or the states would have gotten all lawyerly about whether people from Rhode Island had the same legal status as Citizens of Connecticut. In areas where the Founders clearly can't be referring to Icelanders in Reykjavik (ie: the Second Amendment), they refer to "the people." The definite article is the giveaway, because it indicates that the noun "people" is a defined group, and the only such group that the Fourth can be referring to is the people of the US.
As for illegal activities, that would be a great argument if his lawyers mentioned any illegal activities that were actually illegal. They don't say anything about the Fourth, they just go on and on about how hypocritical the government is for hacking people.
Not addressing does not mean protecting. It means it was ignored. You not stopping a mugger from grabbing granny's purse does not mean you protected the criminal.
Dude, let's not start the ad hominem yet. Your ad hominem are even worse then your metaphors.
This particular metaphor is stupid because the Founders knew perfectly well slavery was happening, and they knew it would be an issue going forward. So it's analogous to you knowing precisely which criminal was going to seize Granny's purse, and not telling the cops about it.
The 3/5th part had absolutely nothing to do with slavery either. It was only a way to limit the tax burden on slave states and prevent excessive representation.
So it only applies to slave states, but it has nothing to do with slavery? I believe you just contradicted yourself.
And yes, the emancipation proclamation was constitutional. The abandond and captured property act of 1863 allowed it. Remember, congress has the ability to grant marks and reprisal but as the south was in insurection, they were considered an invading force too. So slaves at the time being property could very well be confiscated and dispised of in any mannor the commander in chief saw fit. It wasn't until after the civil war and the passage of constitution amendments that slaves could no longer be property. The emancipation proclomation did not free all slaves, it only freed them in the areas of rebellion not held by union forces. This allowed slaves to be caputured by the north (when they left the south) and disposed of (like property) according to the executive powers of the president and as commander in chief.
Just because statutes allow something that does not imply it's Constitutional.
The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.
The proclamation was enforced with an unconstitutional income tax, and to top it off Lincoln did that thing were he ignored it when Chief Justice Taney granted a writ of habeus corpus.
I can't say I actually understand how these idiots think, but I have dealt with them, so I can verify they do exist.
Some of them point out that, statistically speaking, a slave on a high-end plantation was healthier then a poor white man (which neatly ignores the fact that if you're a high-end plantation owner you get rid of anyone who gets sick, which you can do either a variety of ways). At least one has been in the midst of a full "the Constitution is by definition freedom" mental melt-down, which meant he strongly implied that Abe Lincoln was a tyrant for issuing an Emancipation proclamation that violated quite a few articles of the Constitution.
In American culture as a whole slavery gets used as a metaphor for so many relatively trivial things that many people (especially Libertarian people) forget that the American version of slavery was actually a worse then those things. It was so bad that a lot of the things that even things that are clearly not tricvial were probably a lot better then American slavery. For example, would you rather work in a forced labor camp for a maximum of 20 years, and then (if you survived) go back to your family; or would you prefer to live and die a slave, with no idea where your family is because almost every slave got sold once? The death rate at the labor camp has to be incredibly high for slavery to be a better option, and there's a whole lot of debate over the actual death rate in a Gulag.
BTW, the sex part is included because I've actually dealt with people on technology forums who claimed slavery wasn't that bad. They tend to go away after you've pointed out it involved an awful lot of rape, but I am sick of explaining to white people that slavery as practiced right here in these United States was as bad as anything humans did to each-other prior to the 20th century.
I don't want to deal with idiots who think Sherman's March to the Sea was worse then the crime of defending the Confederacy in the first place; and if that makes me sound like a loon I'll tattoo a fucking Canadian dollar to my forehead.
Today's the first time I've ever gotten modded offtopic. And that post was anti-government because it pointed out that the Constitution was not about universal freedom until the 1860s. I'm not surprised about the flame-bait mods, but off-topic was just weird man.
OTOH, my post pointing out that you really have to stretch to believe any judge is gonna care whether a given search looked like a hack from Weev is still at 5.
In US law, a document referring to "the people" with a definite article is generally assumed to refer solely to the American people. If the Founders wanted to give rights to innocent Canadians they would have simply said "the right to be secure...," rather then "the right of the people to be secure..." So his nationality is extremely important.
You're taking me right. Obama is the law in terms of determining what is Classified or not. If he decides that the campaign against ISIS will be well-served by releasing some factoid every other person in the entire government thinks should be top secret, then he can do it.
I assume most of the people who interpreted it wrong were doing so intentionally, because they pretty much all posted as ACs.
You really should drop the sex part, it makes you look like a loon.
Granted the constitution did not bar slavery, but you cannot say with any intelectual honesty that it protected or promoted it. I'm sorry you do not like the constitution or the US founding but that does not give you license to imagine crap and pretend it is true.
I didn't say it promoted slavery. I said it protected it.
And it did. There is no enumerated power that would have allowed an Emancipation Proclamation. This means the new federal government could not abolish slavery, which means slavery was (by definition) protected. Regulated to an extent, by the end of the foreign trade, and the 3/5 clause; but 100% protected.
Congress gets the power to make any laws they want governing certain areas in Article I. Article II gives the President King-like powers of a) enforcing those laws, b) participating in the Legislative process (the veto), and c) he gets some King-like powers of his own.
Since your rights are circumscribed by any law the government enforces, and the government has the right to enforce said laws, it's clear that as long as the government stays in it's lane (ie: statutes emanating from an enumerated power, no violations of the Amendments, etc.) it has powers to d shit to you that you could not even dream fo doing to either a) the government or b) another person.
You really suck at this arguing on the internet thing.
All you have bothered to learn about me is that I think two statements are true. You haven't bothered to include any evidence that either one of the statements is false; yet you think you've proven I'm a childish fool who is racist against white people. I'm trying to think of a flaw in logic you didn't include in those two paragraphs, but you seem to have covered your bases pretty thoroughly.
As for the Constitution's use in a totalitarian regime, you're ignoring one simple fact: it's already done that. It looks a lot different then in Germany, because the thug isn't officially empowered by the government. But you still ended up with multiple black majority states "electing" white supremacist governors in the 1870s. Granted it wasn't as bad as Hitler, but South Carolina in 1880 was a hell of a lot more evil then Zimbabwe or Cuba is today. And it survived solely because the guy in charge insisted he was Constitutionally banned from stopping his boys from lynching people.
It applies to the American people as a whole, which means that in theory even dewbacks get the benefit of the doubt. In practice they really don't because a dude whose first language is Spanish and has never earned more then $20k in a year isn't gonna be able to get a good immigration lawyer to stop his ass from being deported; but then the entire US Court system is designed to be very easy on anyone who either a) knows it's ins and outs or b) has the cold hard cash to hire somebody who does.
According to the article that is the entire argument his lawyers are making. It quotes absolutely zero statements on the Fourth Amendment. It quotes a lot of BS about "illegal behavior," and "double standards," but it says precisely jack-shit about Ulbricht's lawyers saying the Feds needed a warrant.
As for the Fourth, the actual text of what the Amendment says is that it only applies to "the people." Which means the US people, not Icelanders living in Reykjavik.
Whether the Court's right about the good faith exception is a totally academic question. What matters is that the Courts think they're right, the present Supreme Court Justices ain't gonna change their minds, therefore fuck you Ross Ulbricht.
I already did. Article II of the US Constitution gives the president very similar powers to those of the English king in several areas: notably defense, and running the day-to-day operations of the government. This means that in an area where the DoD makes lots of day-to-day administrative decisions the President's word is litterally the law.
As for cites, I will note that the Constitution could not have been passed if South Carolina had any reason to believe the north could deprive it of it's sex slaves, therefore the document must have been designed specifically to allow SC to keep it's sex slaves.
I will also note that the first thing the new government did was recruit a Legion of the United States to conquer Ohio.
Please cite a) the statute that makes it illegal for a President to declassify information that has been classified on his authority, and b) the Court decision confirming Congress has the power to make such a statute.
You need a statute for a) because Executive orders can also be unilaterally altered by the President. Without b) you have nothing, because both the Executive and legislative branches are specifically intended to go beyond their authority all the time.
The whole point of the first bit of Article II Section 1 is to give the President and his appointees powers ordinary schmucks don't have to execute the law. These powers are somewhat restricted by the law enforcement Amendments, but are still a whole hell of a lot broader then the rights ordinary citizens enjoy. Which means if you're a criminal defendant, and you're telling a Judge that evidence should be thrown out because it would have been illegal for someone who isn't the government to do it, that ain't gonna work. Weev and other hackers have Rights, but they don't have powers, so what they are allowed to do is totally irrelevant to what the government is allowed to do in a criminal case. They're intentionally wasting the Court's time.
If they were making a Fourth Amendment Argument that could get interesting because the data belonged to an American; which means the Feds should have had a warrant. However, the Supreme Court has created something called a under a "good faith exception," which allows the government to use it's search and seizure powers on anyone it reasonably suspects of not being American, and I sincerely doubt that most Icelandic webservers are rented out to dudes from Peoria.
Depending on the situation that can actually be true. Classified documents, for example, are classified on the authority of the President. This means that if he decides to declassify something he doesn't have to go through any official procedures. So if Obama says something that's classified in a speech he hasn't broken the law. He's not above the law. He is the law. Literally.
Americans are under this absolutely bizarre impression that the Constitution is designed to be fair. That is ridiculous BS. The Constitution is designed to allow South Carolina to use the majority of it's female population as sex slaves (seriously, prior to the 20s most South Carolinians were black, and in 1789 the only thing stopping a black woman from being a sex slave was the good will of the highest bidder). It was passed largely because the previous set of governing documents (the Articles of Confederation) had not given the central government enough power to effectively steal Ohio from the Indians.
The fact that, with major additions, and an awful lot of motivated reasoning; it can be used to run a country that is vaguely fairish does not magically make every single clause of the damn thing fair.
None of those is really fool-proof. The laser to rocket engine one is cool, and would probably work, if you could actually get it to hit the missile while the engine's engaged. The missile would scoot off, totally out of control, and miss. The mobile defense pod is also workable. The problem with the former is I don't think any combat lasers actually work that well. You have to be really close to get a beam concentrated enough to do any damage, and the whole point of space is it's huge.
A problem with both is that it's really hard to detect a missile that's painted back, in space, after the rocket engine cuts off. So if I'm trying to attack you, and I simply calculate the vector required to get my missiles from my base to you, I can simply program my missiles rocket engines to get on that vector and cut off. If you see the initial launch you can make a fairly good guess as to the vector I'm using, but you have to see the initial launch. If I get clever and create a missile with two stages, launch with one stage from any distance, let the missile coast, and then program the second stage to maneuver independently when it's within a few clicks of your base I can probably get around your barriers. Moreover missiles don't have to be aerodynamic in space. A missile with an engine 1 m wide, and a nose cone 10 m wide will work fine, and be virtually impossible for you to see even at the initial launch if I get the geometry right.
And, of course, even if it works as long as your defenses don't keep my missiles from entering their final attack vector you've got the shrapnel to deal with. Even if your lasers vaporize a missile on it's final attack vector, the vapor has the same mass the missile did, and the same velocity. It probably has less penetrating power, and no explosive charge, but 400 lb of air at Mach 15 or 20 is still a very big problem. If your defensive pod gets in the vapor's way it probably gets moved straight back into your base.
It makes sense in-story and in-universe. In-story, she starts out commanding fairly small ships, so their armament sucks. 10 missiles really are a big deal to the Fearless.
In-universe you have several decades of rapid development of military technology, both in terms of production (ie: the Manticoran fleet in the first book has under 100 of ships of the wall, in latter books it loses 146 Superdreadnoughts in a single battle, which it wins), and in terms of actual technical advances. And in military technology things change really fast. In 1935 almost every air force in the world used cloth-skinned biplanes which struggled to hit 200 MPH. By 1947 those had been replaced by cloth-skinned monoplanes (350 MPH), which had been replaced by metal-skinned monoplanes (450 MPH), which were being replaced by early jets (1000 MPH), and Yeager had broken the sound barrier those jets weren't going to be cutting edge for very long.
So yeah, Weber's really worked at getting the physics right. He's clearly chosen the physics so that it tells the story he wants (ie: start out with late 18th century naval combat IN SPACE, advance to WW2-style fleet actions IN SPACE); but that doesn't mean that they don't work.
Depends on how tough my ship is. The 35 lb of debris left over after a 35 lb missile blows up is probably not a problem for my shielding, but 35 lb is really fucking light for a missile. It's the kind of missile that you can shoot from your shoulder. Air-to-air missile typically weigh more like 350 lb, and 350 lb of shrapnel is gonna scratch the hell out of my paint.
Assuming that lift off-planet is cheap enough for space war to be a real possibility, the missiles involved will probably be a lot heavier then that. A half-ton or so of shrapnel would take out any space facility we can conceive of with current technology.
That first paragraph would be a very persuasive argument if Congress had the right to pass the law. Since the whole point of this debate is that it's not clear Congress can unilaterally curtail either a) the powers the President has to enforce laws or b) the Court's duty to judge warrants based solely on the Fourth Amendment; your first paragraph is irrelevant.
Moreover it's pretty silly: yes in 1789 the Presidential powers sucked. Now the President can talk to the people he appoints to all the little offices everywhere in the country. He can also fire them. There are thousands of them. They work for a government that has it's hand in every pie. This means that if the president decides not to do his duty and enforce a given law (ie: DOMA, pot laws in Colorado, etc.) he can get away with that. The Courts consider the dispute a dust-up between the other two branches and won't intervene. Congress could make a big deal out of it,. but to do that they'd actually have to make a big deal out of it (by impeachment or government shut-down) and they're too chicken to try.
Your next couple paragraphs would be more persuasive, if you had a single example of Congress passing a single law restricting the powers of search and seizure. You don't. I'm arguing Search and Seizure are inherent to the phrase "executive power." Under common law sentencing has never been an element of Executive power. Choosing when to ask for a warrant is an element of Executive Power, related to the Prosecutorial Discretion that lets Obama not prosecute potheads in Colorado.
I'm not saying you're totally unpersuasive. I've actually gone from pretty skeptical to relatively sure the Courts go along with you. But anyone who acts like a system with "Separation of Powers" and "Checks and balances" specifically designed into it has to understand that those systems only work when the delineations between the Branches are not clear, because otherwise they'll never have any reason to check each-other. This is one of those cases where Congress would be either a) using a power it has apparently never used before or b) arrogating itself a power it does not have; which means c) it's a judgement call whether it has said power.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. You know perfectly well that muggers steal old ladies purses. The federal government was never intended to have that much control over the states.
I believe you just agreed with me.
My argument is that the Constitution was designed to protect slavery. Your argument is that the Constitution "was never intended to give the Federal government that much control over states." In other words, you just agreed that it was specifically designed to protect slavery from the Federal government.
Thanks.
The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.
You can skip the third parties in your explanation of the emancipation proclamation. It isn't necessary at all. But the sixth amendment does not limit the government's actions against foreign entities especially when at war with them- just US entities.
Apparently neither of us knows the Constitution as well as we thought. Or rather apparently I don't, and you didn't bother to check.
It's the Fifth Amendment we're talking about, and it's last clause is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Now the south considered themselves to be foreign to the US, Lincoln and congress considered them a belligerent power (an entity of their own right) and states up to this time were actually countries who surrendered a portion of their sovereignty to a central federal government but retained most of it. More importantly, the US north set a requirement of ratifying the 13th amendment to allow the south to "fully rejoin" the union during the reconstruction. Of course the rumor was Johnson used that threat was to force the 13th amendment before congress reconvened because he knew it would be hostile towards the south and limits their ability to rejoin the union.
That's a neat bit of legal reasoning, and it's largely the one Lincoln used. But it ignores the fact there was a fairly strong minority of southern slave-owners who remained loyal. Sherman's bodyguard on his March to the Sea was actually the First Alabama.
I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with things. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus which was unconstitutional but supported in other courts. You aren't attempting to claim that because he did something unconstitutional that anything you want to claim is so- is automatically unconstitutional because of it are you?
I'm not the one who said the income tax was Unconstitutional prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment.
I think you are a victim of this new age history in which everything is contorted and construed into some version in which the US is evil. In all your statements about the US constitution, you have to make a leap so large that Evil Kneivel would be scared to jump that far in order to support your assumptions. It's really depressing that you fight so strongly for such incorrect beliefs.
If I've fallen for silly anti-American BS, why did you agree with me in the first sentence of this post?
Are you arguing about the search that revealed the data, or the government's explanation of how that search happened? Because the latter argument has absolutely nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. Which means the exclusionary rule does not apply. The remedy for the Court saying the government is excessively deceptive about how it obtained evidence is that the judge orders the government to come clean, not that the evidence gets excluded.
Note the "excessively." If the Courts think that the manner in which the evidence was obtained is irrelevant to the question before them (ie: did this idiot Ulricht pay somebody to kill people), then they will let the government get away with it. Under the American system of government the accused has the right to argue the evidence is complete BS, but he doesn't get to waste the Court's time with years of depositions figuring out precisely how the evidence got into the government's hands. In many cases the Judge will actively aid the government in lying about it's investigative techniques, because you do not actually have a right to know which technique the government used to tap your phone. You just have the right to know your phone was tapped, and this is the recording.
So slavery without rape is ok then?
Your entire premis is incorect to start with but your attempt to push a specific version seems to paint the wrong inferences. I would think beating a person to the point they died after suffering for several days might be a bit worse than rape but neither is protected, encouraged, or supported by the US constitution as your original statements make.
Murder just doesn't have the same emotional impact as rape.
And yes, both were protected because the Constitution is specifically designed so that the Feds can't stop slave-owners from doing either.
Also, defending the confederacy was not about slavery directly until the emancipation proclomation. It was about economic freedom and federalism which the US government was trying to undo. Before lincoln forced the issue to gain support to get reelected, slavery was not a target of thecivil war. Sex with slave was never part of the war nore anyintended cause for remedy after the war.
You seem like a nice guy- just a little misguided and a lot confused about action and inaction and the meaning of such.
You don't know the timeline very well. Seven of the South's 13 seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. They couldn't be reacting to Lincoln's tyranny. They were anticipating that the North would restrict slavery, and they wanted none of that. All their founding documents repeatedly refer to themselves as the "slaveholding states." So you can make an academic argument that defending the Confederacy was not defending slavery prior to the Proclamation, but in reality the guy defending a Confederation of slave-holding states from the tyranny of a guy who might restrict slavery (but hasn't tried to yet) is defending slavery.
Note that the Proclamation was issued 17n months into a 48 month war. Since every southern soldier was by definition defending slaves from being freedx by the north after that, then almost 2/3 of a Southern officer's war was spent defending slaves from being freed.
Reread the Constitution.
"Citizen" is an individual title in the early bits of the Constitution. Citizen A is (or is not) eligible for this office, Citizen can sue Citizen C in such-and-such a Court. The closest thing there is to a reference to "Citizens" as holding Constitutional rights is the priveleges and immunities clause, and they pretty much had to use that exact word or the states would have gotten all lawyerly about whether people from Rhode Island had the same legal status as Citizens of Connecticut. In areas where the Founders clearly can't be referring to Icelanders in Reykjavik (ie: the Second Amendment), they refer to "the people." The definite article is the giveaway, because it indicates that the noun "people" is a defined group, and the only such group that the Fourth can be referring to is the people of the US.
As for illegal activities, that would be a great argument if his lawyers mentioned any illegal activities that were actually illegal. They don't say anything about the Fourth, they just go on and on about how hypocritical the government is for hacking people.
So they're supposed to let an attempted murderer go free because they didn't get paperwork they probably didn't need?
Arguments like that are why everyone says they support Civil Liberties activists like you, and then proceeds to do absolutely nothing you want.
Wow.. you certainly are clueless.
Not addressing does not mean protecting. It means it was ignored. You not stopping a mugger from grabbing granny's purse does not mean you protected the criminal.
Dude, let's not start the ad hominem yet. Your ad hominem are even worse then your metaphors.
This particular metaphor is stupid because the Founders knew perfectly well slavery was happening, and they knew it would be an issue going forward. So it's analogous to you knowing precisely which criminal was going to seize Granny's purse, and not telling the cops about it.
The 3/5th part had absolutely nothing to do with slavery either. It was only a way to limit the tax burden on slave states and prevent excessive representation.
So it only applies to slave states, but it has nothing to do with slavery? I believe you just contradicted yourself.
And yes, the emancipation proclamation was constitutional. The abandond and captured property act of 1863 allowed it. Remember, congress has the ability to grant marks and reprisal but as the south was in insurection, they were considered an invading force too. So slaves at the time being property could very well be confiscated and dispised of in any mannor the commander in chief saw fit. It wasn't until after the civil war and the passage of constitution amendments that slaves could no longer be property. The emancipation proclomation did not free all slaves, it only freed them in the areas of rebellion not held by union forces. This allowed slaves to be caputured by the north (when they left the south) and disposed of (like property) according to the executive powers of the president and as commander in chief.
Just because statutes allow something that does not imply it's Constitutional.
The Sixth Amendment specifically bans the taking of private property for public use without compensation. And you;re not supposed to be able to get around that by simply granting the property to some third party before you take it, and then hiring it from said third party. But that's precisely how the Emancipation Proclamation operated: the largest source of wealth in the South was taken from it's owners (ie: slaveholders), granted to third paryies (ie: the slaves themselves), and then hired into the Union Army.
The proclamation was enforced with an unconstitutional income tax, and to top it off Lincoln did that thing were he ignored it when Chief Justice Taney granted a writ of habeus corpus.
I can't say I actually understand how these idiots think, but I have dealt with them, so I can verify they do exist.
Some of them point out that, statistically speaking, a slave on a high-end plantation was healthier then a poor white man (which neatly ignores the fact that if you're a high-end plantation owner you get rid of anyone who gets sick, which you can do either a variety of ways). At least one has been in the midst of a full "the Constitution is by definition freedom" mental melt-down, which meant he strongly implied that Abe Lincoln was a tyrant for issuing an Emancipation proclamation that violated quite a few articles of the Constitution.
In American culture as a whole slavery gets used as a metaphor for so many relatively trivial things that many people (especially Libertarian people) forget that the American version of slavery was actually a worse then those things. It was so bad that a lot of the things that even things that are clearly not tricvial were probably a lot better then American slavery. For example, would you rather work in a forced labor camp for a maximum of 20 years, and then (if you survived) go back to your family; or would you prefer to live and die a slave, with no idea where your family is because almost every slave got sold once? The death rate at the labor camp has to be incredibly high for slavery to be a better option, and there's a whole lot of debate over the actual death rate in a Gulag.
BTW, the sex part is included because I've actually dealt with people on technology forums who claimed slavery wasn't that bad. They tend to go away after you've pointed out it involved an awful lot of rape, but I am sick of explaining to white people that slavery as practiced right here in these United States was as bad as anything humans did to each-other prior to the 20th century.
I don't want to deal with idiots who think Sherman's March to the Sea was worse then the crime of defending the Confederacy in the first place; and if that makes me sound like a loon I'll tattoo a fucking Canadian dollar to my forehead.
Now that you mention it...
Today's the first time I've ever gotten modded offtopic. And that post was anti-government because it pointed out that the Constitution was not about universal freedom until the 1860s. I'm not surprised about the flame-bait mods, but off-topic was just weird man.
OTOH, my post pointing out that you really have to stretch to believe any judge is gonna care whether a given search looked like a hack from Weev is still at 5.
In US law, a document referring to "the people" with a definite article is generally assumed to refer solely to the American people. If the Founders wanted to give rights to innocent Canadians they would have simply said "the right to be secure...," rather then "the right of the people to be secure..." So his nationality is extremely important.
You're taking me right. Obama is the law in terms of determining what is Classified or not. If he decides that the campaign against ISIS will be well-served by releasing some factoid every other person in the entire government thinks should be top secret, then he can do it.
I assume most of the people who interpreted it wrong were doing so intentionally, because they pretty much all posted as ACs.
You really should drop the sex part, it makes you look like a loon.
Granted the constitution did not bar slavery, but you cannot say with any intelectual honesty that it protected or promoted it. I'm sorry you do not like the constitution or the US founding but that does not give you license to imagine crap and pretend it is true.
I didn't say it promoted slavery. I said it protected it.
And it did. There is no enumerated power that would have allowed an Emancipation Proclamation. This means the new federal government could not abolish slavery, which means slavery was (by definition) protected. Regulated to an extent, by the end of the foreign trade, and the 3/5 clause; but 100% protected.
All of them. Seriously.
Congress gets the power to make any laws they want governing certain areas in Article I. Article II gives the President King-like powers of a) enforcing those laws, b) participating in the Legislative process (the veto), and c) he gets some King-like powers of his own.
Since your rights are circumscribed by any law the government enforces, and the government has the right to enforce said laws, it's clear that as long as the government stays in it's lane (ie: statutes emanating from an enumerated power, no violations of the Amendments, etc.) it has powers to d shit to you that you could not even dream fo doing to either a) the government or b) another person.
You really suck at this arguing on the internet thing.
All you have bothered to learn about me is that I think two statements are true. You haven't bothered to include any evidence that either one of the statements is false; yet you think you've proven I'm a childish fool who is racist against white people. I'm trying to think of a flaw in logic you didn't include in those two paragraphs, but you seem to have covered your bases pretty thoroughly.
As for the Constitution's use in a totalitarian regime, you're ignoring one simple fact: it's already done that. It looks a lot different then in Germany, because the thug isn't officially empowered by the government. But you still ended up with multiple black majority states "electing" white supremacist governors in the 1870s. Granted it wasn't as bad as Hitler, but South Carolina in 1880 was a hell of a lot more evil then Zimbabwe or Cuba is today. And it survived solely because the guy in charge insisted he was Constitutionally banned from stopping his boys from lynching people.
Reread the Fourth.
It applies to the American people as a whole, which means that in theory even dewbacks get the benefit of the doubt. In practice they really don't because a dude whose first language is Spanish and has never earned more then $20k in a year isn't gonna be able to get a good immigration lawyer to stop his ass from being deported; but then the entire US Court system is designed to be very easy on anyone who either a) knows it's ins and outs or b) has the cold hard cash to hire somebody who does.
According to the article that is the entire argument his lawyers are making. It quotes absolutely zero statements on the Fourth Amendment. It quotes a lot of BS about "illegal behavior," and "double standards," but it says precisely jack-shit about Ulbricht's lawyers saying the Feds needed a warrant.
As for the Fourth, the actual text of what the Amendment says is that it only applies to "the people." Which means the US people, not Icelanders living in Reykjavik.
Whether the Court's right about the good faith exception is a totally academic question. What matters is that the Courts think they're right, the present Supreme Court Justices ain't gonna change their minds, therefore fuck you Ross Ulbricht.
I already did. Article II of the US Constitution gives the president very similar powers to those of the English king in several areas: notably defense, and running the day-to-day operations of the government. This means that in an area where the DoD makes lots of day-to-day administrative decisions the President's word is litterally the law.
Your turn.
Who said anything about only? That's a straw man.
As for cites, I will note that the Constitution could not have been passed if South Carolina had any reason to believe the north could deprive it of it's sex slaves, therefore the document must have been designed specifically to allow SC to keep it's sex slaves.
I will also note that the first thing the new government did was recruit a Legion of the United States to conquer Ohio.
Please cite a) the statute that makes it illegal for a President to declassify information that has been classified on his authority, and b) the Court decision confirming Congress has the power to make such a statute.
You need a statute for a) because Executive orders can also be unilaterally altered by the President. Without b) you have nothing, because both the Executive and legislative branches are specifically intended to go beyond their authority all the time.
The whole point of the first bit of Article II Section 1 is to give the President and his appointees powers ordinary schmucks don't have to execute the law. These powers are somewhat restricted by the law enforcement Amendments, but are still a whole hell of a lot broader then the rights ordinary citizens enjoy. Which means if you're a criminal defendant, and you're telling a Judge that evidence should be thrown out because it would have been illegal for someone who isn't the government to do it, that ain't gonna work. Weev and other hackers have Rights, but they don't have powers, so what they are allowed to do is totally irrelevant to what the government is allowed to do in a criminal case. They're intentionally wasting the Court's time.
If they were making a Fourth Amendment Argument that could get interesting because the data belonged to an American; which means the Feds should have had a warrant. However, the Supreme Court has created something called a under a "good faith exception," which allows the government to use it's search and seizure powers on anyone it reasonably suspects of not being American, and I sincerely doubt that most Icelandic webservers are rented out to dudes from Peoria.
Depending on the situation that can actually be true. Classified documents, for example, are classified on the authority of the President. This means that if he decides to declassify something he doesn't have to go through any official procedures. So if Obama says something that's classified in a speech he hasn't broken the law. He's not above the law. He is the law. Literally.
Americans are under this absolutely bizarre impression that the Constitution is designed to be fair. That is ridiculous BS. The Constitution is designed to allow South Carolina to use the majority of it's female population as sex slaves (seriously, prior to the 20s most South Carolinians were black, and in 1789 the only thing stopping a black woman from being a sex slave was the good will of the highest bidder). It was passed largely because the previous set of governing documents (the Articles of Confederation) had not given the central government enough power to effectively steal Ohio from the Indians.
The fact that, with major additions, and an awful lot of motivated reasoning; it can be used to run a country that is vaguely fairish does not magically make every single clause of the damn thing fair.
None of those is really fool-proof. The laser to rocket engine one is cool, and would probably work, if you could actually get it to hit the missile while the engine's engaged. The missile would scoot off, totally out of control, and miss. The mobile defense pod is also workable. The problem with the former is I don't think any combat lasers actually work that well. You have to be really close to get a beam concentrated enough to do any damage, and the whole point of space is it's huge.
A problem with both is that it's really hard to detect a missile that's painted back, in space, after the rocket engine cuts off. So if I'm trying to attack you, and I simply calculate the vector required to get my missiles from my base to you, I can simply program my missiles rocket engines to get on that vector and cut off. If you see the initial launch you can make a fairly good guess as to the vector I'm using, but you have to see the initial launch. If I get clever and create a missile with two stages, launch with one stage from any distance, let the missile coast, and then program the second stage to maneuver independently when it's within a few clicks of your base I can probably get around your barriers. Moreover missiles don't have to be aerodynamic in space. A missile with an engine 1 m wide, and a nose cone 10 m wide will work fine, and be virtually impossible for you to see even at the initial launch if I get the geometry right.
And, of course, even if it works as long as your defenses don't keep my missiles from entering their final attack vector you've got the shrapnel to deal with. Even if your lasers vaporize a missile on it's final attack vector, the vapor has the same mass the missile did, and the same velocity. It probably has less penetrating power, and no explosive charge, but 400 lb of air at Mach 15 or 20 is still a very big problem. If your defensive pod gets in the vapor's way it probably gets moved straight back into your base.
It makes sense in-story and in-universe. In-story, she starts out commanding fairly small ships, so their armament sucks. 10 missiles really are a big deal to the Fearless.
In-universe you have several decades of rapid development of military technology, both in terms of production (ie: the Manticoran fleet in the first book has under 100 of ships of the wall, in latter books it loses 146 Superdreadnoughts in a single battle, which it wins), and in terms of actual technical advances. And in military technology things change really fast. In 1935 almost every air force in the world used cloth-skinned biplanes which struggled to hit 200 MPH. By 1947 those had been replaced by cloth-skinned monoplanes (350 MPH), which had been replaced by metal-skinned monoplanes (450 MPH), which were being replaced by early jets (1000 MPH), and Yeager had broken the sound barrier those jets weren't going to be cutting edge for very long.
So yeah, Weber's really worked at getting the physics right. He's clearly chosen the physics so that it tells the story he wants (ie: start out with late 18th century naval combat IN SPACE, advance to WW2-style fleet actions IN SPACE); but that doesn't mean that they don't work.
Depends on how tough my ship is. The 35 lb of debris left over after a 35 lb missile blows up is probably not a problem for my shielding, but 35 lb is really fucking light for a missile. It's the kind of missile that you can shoot from your shoulder. Air-to-air missile typically weigh more like 350 lb, and 350 lb of shrapnel is gonna scratch the hell out of my paint.
Assuming that lift off-planet is cheap enough for space war to be a real possibility, the missiles involved will probably be a lot heavier then that. A half-ton or so of shrapnel would take out any space facility we can conceive of with current technology.
That first paragraph would be a very persuasive argument if Congress had the right to pass the law. Since the whole point of this debate is that it's not clear Congress can unilaterally curtail either a) the powers the President has to enforce laws or b) the Court's duty to judge warrants based solely on the Fourth Amendment; your first paragraph is irrelevant.
Moreover it's pretty silly: yes in 1789 the Presidential powers sucked. Now the President can talk to the people he appoints to all the little offices everywhere in the country. He can also fire them. There are thousands of them. They work for a government that has it's hand in every pie. This means that if the president decides not to do his duty and enforce a given law (ie: DOMA, pot laws in Colorado, etc.) he can get away with that. The Courts consider the dispute a dust-up between the other two branches and won't intervene. Congress could make a big deal out of it,. but to do that they'd actually have to make a big deal out of it (by impeachment or government shut-down) and they're too chicken to try.
Your next couple paragraphs would be more persuasive, if you had a single example of Congress passing a single law restricting the powers of search and seizure. You don't. I'm arguing Search and Seizure are inherent to the phrase "executive power." Under common law sentencing has never been an element of Executive power. Choosing when to ask for a warrant is an element of Executive Power, related to the Prosecutorial Discretion that lets Obama not prosecute potheads in Colorado.
I'm not saying you're totally unpersuasive. I've actually gone from pretty skeptical to relatively sure the Courts go along with you. But anyone who acts like a system with "Separation of Powers" and "Checks and balances" specifically designed into it has to understand that those systems only work when the delineations between the Branches are not clear, because otherwise they'll never have any reason to check each-other. This is one of those cases where Congress would be either a) using a power it has apparently never used before or b) arrogating itself a power it does not have; which means c) it's a judgement call whether it has said power.